The Global Environment Facility has financed 23 Large Marine Ecosystem projects in all ecologically significant marine areas of the world. Through implementation of these projects, a wealth of experience, information and knowledge has been generated. The major investments by GEF and the successes they realized prompted the GEF LME:LEARN project (funded by the GEF, implemented by UNDP, and managed by IOC-UNESCO) to produce ten policy briefs on various subjects covering areas where particular LMEs have achieved some innovative approach or result. The aim was to succinctly evaluate policy options regarding these ten specific issues for government policymakers and those who are interested in formulating or influencing policy, to convince them of the urgency to adopt the preferred alternative or course of action outlined and therefore, serve as an impetus for action.
Each policy brief is comprised of the following:
A short snapshot of each brief as well as links to the full documents are provided below:
Even when decision makers, managers and development practitioners are aware of gender mainstreaming and its suitability and applicability in the integrated management of marine and coastal ecosystems, they often lack practical actions and strategies on how to implement it. Not only is there a critical lack of such practically-oriented documentation, but also the varied socio-economic, cultural, geographical and political contexts of gendered relations and access and control of resources means that there is no ‘standard formula’ for successful gender mainstreaming in marine and coastal interventions.
The full brief can be accessed here.
Policy makers should consider the cumulative risks of all coastal hazards and distinguish the different types of risks associated with individual hazards and events. This facilitates the prioritisation of the hazard prone areas and hazards that have a higher likelihood or occurring, or higher risk of catastrophic damage when they do. Using this prioritisation approach then provides policy makers and planners with a basis for developing a management strategy to reduce the community’s exposure and vulnerability to these hazards. Such a strategy will need to be developed under an ICM, or similar multisectoral, approach. Decisions must be made that take into account the wide range of stakeholder interests and impacts on other coastal management pressures. The management strategy will also need to identify responsibilities, both operational and financial.
A wide variety of types of MPAs and related policy frameworks have been developed to conserve and sustainably use coastal and marine resources and ecosystems. Globally, 7.5% of the ocean are covered by MPAs with 39% of these in national waters and 61% in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ). Degradative pressures that MPAs are often brought in to address and manage are invasive species, negative impacts of land-based activities, unsustainable exploitation of fishery resources, environmental destruction for resource exploration/extraction, climate change and tourism. The overarching goals for MPAs can be thought of as related to conservation and/or to sustainable use. The goal in many MPAs is to practice both in a workable, but limited, spatial scale and they should not be considered separately but as a combined conservation and socioeconomic set of goals.
EAFM breaks from conventional fisheries management which has not been very sustainable in many parts of the world and is unable to sustainably satisfy the increasing demand for ocean-based protein. This is especially the case in multi-species/multi-gear tropical fisheries. Many existing marine management approaches and tools, such as Marine Spatial Planning (MSP), Marine Protected Areas (MPA), Coastal Resource Management (CRM), Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM), and fisheries refugia are based on the “ecosystem approach” concept but were developed in parallel by different user groups with their own management interests. These approaches share many of the same principles and have many commonalities but the management focus or coverage can be different. The main differences relate primarily to the target for management (e.g. coastal resources vs. fisheries). From an EAFM perspective, some can be considered as management tools (e.g. MSP and MPA). The EAFM approach is especially suited in addressing fisheries resource and fisheries governance issues such as overcapacity, overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and use of destructive gears in a multi-user, multi-sectoral context.
When considering a Fisheries Refugia approach it is important to understand how it differs from the traditional MPAs and the focus on small-scale fishing communities. By understanding the shortcomings of an MPA approach in areas essential for small-scale and sustenance fisheries, the case for a refugia-based management system can be understood. Fisheries Refugia approach offers a more community-embraced form of management to the more restrictive, whether perceived or actual, implementation of MPAs on the use of marine resources. MPAs are frequently proposed as fisheries management instruments and, while MPAs can have varying levels of legislated and/or enforced rules and regulations on fishing activities, they are widely understood by fisheries stakeholders to be areas that are closed to fishing. As such, the key challenge lies in achieving their acceptance amongst communities at the local level.
As pressures on marine ecosystems increase, MSP is gaining international recognition as an important approach that integrates environmental, social, and economic interests to achieve multiple management objectives. Over the past decade, an increasing number of countries have begun to implement MSP frameworks, from a local to transboundary scale. Often the motivating factor to deploy MSP is to stop or even reverse negative environmental trends or address space allocation and use as new maritime industries emerge and others grow, thereby improving coordination among sectors to mitigate conflict and identify potential synergies.
In areas where there is a lot of information known (data-rich environments), the challenge can be synthesizing and analyzing complex and disparate information into a useful form to support decision makers. In areas where the marine environment and its resources are not well known (data-poor environments), the challenges are often quite different but not insurmountable. For many of the issues addressed by the GEF International Waters portfolio, taking decisions in data-poor environments is not uncommon. However, a lack of available data and information about resources does not mean informed decision making is not possible. In fact, translating science to management is even more important in data-poor environments, as scientific concepts and theoretical constructs can be used to accurately substitute information gaps to inform decision making.
Climate change adaptation has often been focused on a reactive approach where urgent issues are addressed as they become apparent to resource managers. For example, responding to coral bleaching events or beach nourishment and armoring projects in response to severe storms and sea level rise. Yet, the impacts of climate change are exceptionally poorly understood, and worse, the interactions, and indirect impacts of unprecedented global warming will very likely have far-reaching impacts well beyond what the current state of research predicts. A long-term approach that builds from what is known but can quickly adapt to what is not known is a far more prudent investment.
Establishing effective LME governance at the transboundary scale is a complex and dynamic challenge. The long-term success of shared LME resources relies on continued cooperation among all participating countries. Establishing clear priorities for action to resolve transboundary problems, as outlined in the TDA-SAP methodology, allows for coordinated policies, institutional reforms, and investments at the national and regional level.
Effectively addressing the inherent economic and environmental vulnerabilities of SIDS is critical to successful transboundary marine conservation and economic growth. The Seychelles and Mauritius Joint Management Area, and Micronesia and Caribbean Challenges are just a few examples of ways SIDS have worked together to achieve outcomes that may have not been possible without the support of regional cooperation. To meet the growing interest of blue growth opportunities, which are expected to play a central role for many SIDS overall economic development strategies, building resilience to overcome these recognized vulnerabilities is essential. This will increasingly rely on recognizing the successes and experiences from SIDS, including the policy recommendations outlined.
GEF IW:LEARN expresses their thanks to Andrew Dansie (University of New South Wales-Global Water Institute) and Andrew Hume (Independent Consultant) who were instrumental in the development of these briefs.
For more information on the Policy Briefs, please contact Ivica Trumbic (ivica.trumbic@gmail.com ) and Mish Hamid (mish@iwlearn.org). Other outputs and information related to GEF LME:LEARN are readily available on the website.
© 2026 IW:LEARN
.jpeg?auto=webp)
.jpeg?auto=webp)
.jpeg?auto=webp)
.jpeg?auto=webp)
.jpeg?auto=webp)
.jpeg?auto=webp)
.jpeg?auto=webp)
.jpeg?auto=webp)
.jpeg?auto=webp)
.jpeg?auto=webp)
.jpeg?auto=webp)
.jpeg?auto=webp)
/1x.jpeg?auto=webp)
/1x.jpeg?auto=webp)
/1x.jpeg?auto=webp)
/1x.jpeg?auto=webp)
/1x.jpeg?auto=webp)
/1x.jpeg?auto=webp)